{"id":"court_ctb_1409_24","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1409,"sub_number":24,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-30","title":"RE TAKAMATSU A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HIGH COURT MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 274 OF 2019, [2019] HKCFI 802 HARRIS J","summary_zh":"裁判文书附件（香港判决） —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1409-24（2023-01-30立案）。该文件为法律先例附件，系香港高等法院原讼法庭《Re Takamatsu A》案判决，法庭依据日本法院的请求信，裁定认可对 Japan Life Co., Ltd. 的日本破产程序，并授予日本破产受托人相应权力以获取该公司在香港两家银行的账户记录及资产。","summary_en":"Exhibit (Hong Kong Court Judgment) — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1409-24 (filed 2023-01-30). This document is an exhibit containing the Hong Kong Court of First Instance judgment in Re Takamatsu A [2019] HKCFI 802, which recognized the Japanese bankruptcy proceedings of Japan Life Co., Ltd. and granted the Japanese bankruptcy trustee powers to inspect and access bank account records in Hong Kong pursuant to a letter of request from the Tokyo Court.","body_en":"#### **RE TAKAMATSU A**\n\nCOURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HIGH COURT MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 274 OF 2019, [2019] HKCFI 802 HARRIS J\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 1 of 6\n\n> 28 FEBRUARY, 25 MARCH 2019 **B**\n\n> > **Companies and Corporations – Winding up – Foreign insolvency order – Letter of request – Recognition and assistance – Access by trustee to bank accounts in Hong Kong**\n\n公司?法團 – 清盤 – 外國破產命令 – 墎求信 – 妽可及協助 – 受?人取用櫃港的拃圠岇戶\n\nThe applicant, the appointed trustee in bankruptcy of a company incorporated in Japan which was ordered by the Japanese court to be wound up on the ground of insolvency on 1 March 2018, applied pursuant to a letter of request of the Japanese court for recognition and assistance from the Hong Kong courts in order to enable him to deal with the company's affairs in Hong Kong, including the accessing of the company's bank account records with two banks in Hong Kong. **D**\n\n**E**\n\n**F**\n\n**G**\n\n### **Held, granting the application:**\n\n(1) Although Japan had a civil law system which was not as familiar to the Hong Kong court as systems with similar common law insolvency regimes, it was clear from the evidence that had been filed in support of the application that the company was in a collective insolvency proceeding in its place of incorporation. It followed that the proceeding should be recognised. Although not identical, the status and powers of a trustee in bankruptcy appointed in Japan was similar to those of a liquidator appointed in Hong Kong. The court would therefore grant the Japanese trustee the powers in the standard form recognition order because they were consistent with the powers that the trustee had under Japanese law. *Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Ltd* [2017] HKEC 146, [2017] HKCU 245 applied (paras 9, 13-14).\n\n# **Obiter**\n\n(2) The order in 2(e) of the standard form recognition order granted conferred the right to apply for examinations of a person concerning the affairs of a company or to seek documents from a third party concerning the company's affairs. If such an application were to be made, it would be necessary to demonstrate that a like power existed in the Japanese regime and that it was appropriate to grant such an order on the evidence before the court (para 14).\n\n### **Cases referred to**\n\n*Bay Capital Asia Fund LP v DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd* [2016] HKEC 2377, [2016] HKCU 2627 (CFI)\n\n*Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Ltd, Re* [2017] HKEC 146, [2017] HKCU 245 (CFI)\n\n*Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Ltd, Re* [2018] 2 HKC 485, [2018] 1 HKLRD 1120, [2018] HKCFI 277 (CFI)\n\n**I**\n\n**H**\n\n**C**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 2 of 6\n\n*Joint Provisional Liquidators of China Lumena New Materials Corp, Re* [2018] HKCFI 276, [2018] HKCU 453 (CFI) **A**\n\n### **Legislation referred to**\n\nBankruptcy Act (Act No 75 of 2 June 2004) [Japan] arts 34(1), 78(1), 83(1) Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) s 286B\n\n[*Editorial note*: for cross-border insolvency, see *The Annotated Ordinances of Hong Kong* (LexisNexis), commentary under Part X of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32), [327.05]-[327.06].]\n\n#### **Originating Summons**\n\nThe applicant, Kaoru Takamatsu, a trustee in bankruptcy appointed in Japan over Japan Life Co Ltd, a Japanese incorporated company in compulsory liquidation in Japan, applied for an order from the court to recognise the Japanese winding up and to provide assistance. The facts appear sufficiently in the following judgment.\n\n*Written Submissions by Deacons, for the applicant.*\n\n# **Harris J:**\n\n# *The application*\n\n1. Japan Life Co, Ltd is incorporated in Japan ('**Company**'). The Company was ordered to be wound up on 1 March 2018 by the District Court of Tokyo, Twentieth Civil Division ('**Tokyo Court**') on the grounds of insolvency. Takamatsu Kaoru, who is a lawyer admitted to practice in Japan, was appointed trustee in bankruptcy on the same day. The Company was, so I understand, in the business of selling health products prior to its winding up.\n\n2. The Company maintained accounts with Mizuho Bank, Ltd and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd in Hong Kong. Mr Takamatsu wishes to obtain access to the Company's bank account records held by the two banks, who, although it is unnecessary for reasons discussed in *Bay Capital Asia Fund LP v DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd*, 1 require orders from this Court authorising Mr Takamatsu to request and receive them. In addition, there are three sets of legal proceedings to which the Company is a party. There are also claims for unpaid wages by at least one employee.\n\n3. Mr Takamatsu seeks recognition by this Court and an order providing assistance in order to enable him to deal with the Company's affairs in Hong Kong. He has obtained from the Tokyo Court a letter of request seeking an order for recognition and assistance in substantially the form commonly granted by this Court. The application has been supported by an affirmation of Kondo Tetsuya, also a lawyer admitted to practice law in Japan, explaining relevant elements of the Japanese bankruptcy code.\n\n**E**\n\n**F**\n\n**G**\n\n**H**\n\n**I**\n\n**D**\n\n**B**\n\n**C**\n\n<sup>1.</sup> Unrep, HCMP 3104/2015, 2 November 2016; [2016] HKEC 2377, [2016] HKCU 2627.\n\n|              | Takamatsu, Re |     |\n|--------------|---------------|-----|\n| [2019] 5 HKC | (Harris J)    | 507 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 3 of 6\n\n> 4. As far as I am aware this is the first application by a trustee in bankruptcy appointed in Japan over a Japanese incorporated company in compulsory liquidation in Japan for a formal order recognising the Japanese winding up and providing assistance. It is, therefore, useful for me to summarise for the benefit of practitioners the principles by reference to which the court determines these applications and append to these reasons **A B**\n\nthe order that I will grant.\n\n*The principles of recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings relevant to this application*\n\n**C**\n\n5. The law is well-settled that the Hong Kong court will recognise foreign insolvency proceedings that comply with the following criteria:\n\n(1) the foreign insolvency proceedings are collective insolvency proceedings, such as a Cayman provisional liquidation (eg *Re Joint Provisional Liquidators of China Lumena New Materials Corp*2);\n\n(2) the foreign insolvency proceedings are opened in the company's country of incorporation (eg *Re Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Ltd* 3).\n\n6. Upon the foreign insolvency proceedings being recognised, the Hong Kong court will grant assistance to the foreign officeholders: **E**\n\n'In the case of liquidators appointed in jurisdictions with similar insolvency regimes to Hong Kong, the assistance may extend to granting orders that give the foreign liquidators substantially similar powers…' (*Re Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Ltd.*4)\n\n7. As the law is well-settled, the Companies Court has developed a standard practice on applications for recognition orders and such applications may be granted very quickly on a written application:\n\n'The increasing number of applications for recognition and assistance in recent years has allowed a form of order to emerge that this Court will generally be prepared to grant on written application made pursuant to a letter of request. Such applications can be granted very quickly. I note for the benefit of practitioners that although such applications are very familiar to me, they will not necessarily be familiar to other judges who hear company matters, and applications should comply with Practice Direction 3.5 and be accompanied by a paginated and indexed hearing bundle to assist the court in processing them quickly.' (*Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Ltd.*5) **G H**\n\n8. To help facilitate the grant of recognition orders on the papers, the Companies Court has also provided a standard-form order to guide applicants, as set out in *Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes* **I**\n\n**D**\n\n**F**\n\n<sup>2.</sup> Unrep, [2018] HKCFI 276, [2018] HKCU 453.\n\n<sup>3. [2018] 2</sup> HKC 485, [2018] 1 HKLRD 1120; [2018] HKCFI 277 at [12].\n\n<sup>4.</sup> *Ibid*.\n\n<sup>5.</sup> Unrep, HCMP 3560/2016, 27 January 2017; [2017] HKEC 146, [2017] HKCU 245; at [6].\n\n#### *Enterprises (BVI) Ltd*. 6\n\n# *The order sought is consistent with the conventional recognition practice developed by the Companies Court*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 4 of 6\n\n> 9. Japan has a civil law system, which as a consequence is not as familiar to the Hong Kong court as systems with similar common law insolvency regimes, which are the source of most applications for recognition and assistance. It is, however, clear from the evidence that has been filed in support of the application that the Company is in a collective insolvency proceeding in its place of incorporation. It follows that the proceeding should be recognised. **B C**\n\n10. Japan's Bankruptcy Act (Act No 75 of 2 June 2004) ('**Act**') provides in Article 78(1) that '*Where an order of commencement of bankruptcy proceedings is made, the right to administer and dispose of property that belongs to the bankruptcy estate shall be vested exclusively in a bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court.*' This would appear similar to the position of a trustee in bankruptcy in the case of personal bankruptcy in Hong Kong. Mr Kondo explains that property vests in the trustee automatically and without the need for a formal order transferring title to the trustee.\n\n11. Article 34(1) of the Act defines the bankrupt's estate: '*Any and all property that the bankrupt holds at the time of commencement of bankruptcy proceedings (irrespective of whether or not it exists in Japan) shall constitute the bankruptcy estate.*' **E**\n\n12. Article 83(1) of the Act gives the trustee a right to inspect books and documents and other objects relating to the bankrupt's estate. Mr Kondo opines that it is the governing view in Japan that this right extends to books, documents and objects held by third parties as long as they are relevant to the bankrupt's estate. **F**\n\n13. Although not identical, the status and powers of a trustee in bankruptcy appointed in Japan is similar to those of a liquidator appointed in Hong Kong. In my view it is consistent with established principle for the court to recognise the trustee's status and rights in respect of the administration of the bankrupt's estate. In practical terms this involves recognising that the trustee has the right to take control of the Company's property in Hong Kong and administer it, thus taking over the rights that prior to the making of the bankruptcy order would have vested in the board of the Company. This would include the right to call for, receive and/or inspect documents that the board could call for such as bank records held by the Company's bankers. **G H**\n\n14. The standard recognition and assistance order set out in *Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Ltd* 7confers on a **I**\n\n**A**\n\n**D**\n\n<sup>6.</sup> *Ibid.*\n\n<sup>7.</sup> *Ibid*.\n\n|              | Takamatsu, Re |     |\n|--------------|---------------|-----|\n| [2019] 5 HKC | (Harris J)    | 509 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 5 of 6\n\n- foreign liquidator general power to administer a company's assets and seek documents and information [2(a), (b) & (c)]. These are powers that a trustee has under the Japanese insolvency regime. It seems to me consistent with the principles discussed in cases such as *Pacific Andes* for this Court to grant to a Japanese trustee the powers in the standard order, because they **A**\n- are consistent with the powers that the trustee has under Japanese law. These powers include the right to, for example, apply under *s 286B* of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) for an order for examination of a person concerning the affairs of a company or to seek documents from a third party concerning a company's **B**\n- affairs [2(e)]. I would emphasise that the order in [2(e)] confers the right to apply. If such an application were to be made it would be necessary for Mr Takamatsu to demonstrate that a like power exists in the Japanese regime and that it is appropriate to grant such an order on the evidence before the Court. **C**\n\n**D**\n\n**F**\n\n**G**\n\n**I**\n\n*Order*\n\n15. I will, therefore, grant an order in the terms appended to these reasons.\n\n*Order* **E**\n\n1. The Order made by the District Court of Tokyo, Twentieth Civil Division on 1 March 2018 commencing a bankruptcy procedure in relation to Japan Life Co, Ltd (the '**Company**') and appointing Mr Kaoru Takamatsu (the '**Trustee**') as trustee in bankruptcy of the Company be recognised by this Court.\n\n2. The Trustee has and may exercise such powers as are available to him as a matter of Japanese law and would be available to him under the laws of Hong Kong as if he had been appointed liquidator of the Company under the laws of Hong Kong and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, for the following purposes:\n\n(a) to request and receive from third parties such documents and information as concern the Company, including its promotion, formation, business dealings, accounts, assets, liabilities or affairs including the cause of its insolvency;\n\n(b) to locate, protect, secure and take into his possession and control all assets and property within the jurisdiction of the courts of Hong Kong to which the Company is or appears to be entitled; **H**\n\n(c) to locate, protect, secure and take into his possession and control the books, papers, and records of the Company including the accountancy and statutory records within the jurisdiction of the courts of Hong Kong and to investigate the assets and affairs of the Company and the circumstances which gave rise to its insolvency;\n\n(d) to retain and employ barristers, solicitors or attorneys and/or such other agents or professional persons as the Trustee considers appropriate for the purpose of advising or assisting in the execution of his powers and duties; and\n\n(e) so far as may be necessary to supplement and to effect the powers set out at subparagraphs (a) to (d) above, to bring legal proceedings and make all such applications to this Court whether in his own name or in the name of the Company on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company including any applications for: **A**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 6 of 6\n\n> (i) orders for disclosure, the production of documents and/or examination of third parties which it is anticipated may be made by the Trustee to facilitate his investigations into the assets and affairs of the Company and the circumstances which gave rise to its insolvency; and/or **B**\n\n(ii) ancillary relief such as freezing orders, search and seizure orders in any legal proceedings commenced.\n\n3. For so long as the Company remains in liquidation in Japan, no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the Company or its assets or affairs, or its property within the jurisdiction of the courts of Hong Kong, except with leave of this Court and subject to such terms as this Court may impose.\n\n4. The Trustee do have liberty to apply; and\n\n5. The costs of the application be paid out of the assets of the Company as an expense of the bankruptcy of the Company.\n\nReported by Grace Law\n\n**E**\n\n**D**\n\n**C**\n\n**F**\n\n**G**\n\n**H**\n\n**I**","body_zh":"高松破产案（RE TAKAMATSU） A\n\nCourt of First Instance High Court（高等法院原讼法庭）杂项诉讼2019年第274号，[2019] HKCFI 802 夏利士法官（HARRIS J）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 1 of 6\n\n2019年2月28日、3月25日 B\n\n公司及法团 – 清盘 – 外国破产令 – 司法协助请求书 – 认可及协助 – 破产受托人查阅在香港的银行账户\n\n公司及法团 – 清盘 – 外国破产命令 – 请求信 – 认可及协助 – 受托人取用香港的银行账户\n\n申请人是一家在Japan（日本）注册成立的公司所指定的破产受托人。该日本公司于2018年3月1日因无力偿债被日本法院勒令清盘。申请人根据日本法院发出的司法协助请求书向Hong Kong（香港）法院申请认可及协助，以便其处理该公司在香港的事务，包括查阅该公司在香港两家银行的银行账户记录。 D\n\nE\n\nF\n\nG\n裁定，批准申请：\n\n（1）尽管日本属于大陆法系，香港法院对其熟悉程度不如具有类似普通法系破产清算制度的法域，但根据支持该申请所提交的证据可以明确判定，该公司在其注册成立地正处于集体破产清算程序中。因此，该程序应当予以认可。在日本指定的破产受托人的地位和权力虽然与在香港指定的清盘人并非完全相同，但两者是相似的。因此，法院将依标准格式认可命令授予该日本受托人各项权力，因为这些权力与受托人根据日本法享有的权力相一致。适用Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Ltd [2017] HKEC 146, [2017] HKCU 245（第9、13-14段）。\n附带意见\n\n（2）所授予的标准格式认可命令第2(e)条赋予了申请对涉及公司事务的人员进行质问或向第三方索取有关公司事务的文件的权利。如提出此类申请，则必须证明日本破产清算制度中存在类似权力，且根据向法庭提交的证据，作出此类命令是适当的（第14段）。\n援引判例\n\nBay Capital Asia Fund LP v DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd [2016] HKEC 2377, [2016] HKCU 2627 (CFI)\n\nJoint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Ltd, Re [2017] HKEC 146, [2017] HKCU 245 (CFI)\n\nJoint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Ltd, Re [2018] 2 HKC 485, [2018] 1 HKLRD 1120, [2018] HKCFI 277 (CFI)\n\nI\n\nH\n\nC\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 2 of 6\n\nJoint Provisional Liquidators of China Lumena New Materials Corp, Re [2018] HKCFI 276, [2018] HKCU 453 (CFI) A\n援引立法\n\nBankruptcy Act (Act No 75 of 2 June 2004) [Japan]（《破产法》（2004年6月2日第75号法案）[日本]）第34(1)、78(1)、83(1)条；《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（第32章）第286B条\n\n[编者注：关于跨境破产，见《香港法规注释》（LexisNexis），《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（第32章）第X部下的评注，[327.05]-[327.06]。]\n原诉传票\n\n申请人Kaoru Takamatsu（高松薰）是在日本被指定管理Japan Life Co Ltd（日本生命株式会社，一家在日本强制清盘的日本注册公司）的破产受托人，其向本法院申请作出认可日本清盘程序并提供协助的命令。事实已在下文判决书中予以充分阐明。\n\nDeacons（的近律师行）为申请人提交的书面陈词。\n夏利士法官：\n申请事项\n\n1. Japan Life Co, Ltd在日本注册成立（“该公司”）。该公司于2018年3月1日被District Court of Tokyo, Twentieth Civil Division（东京地方法院民事第20庭，下称“东京法院”）以无力偿债为由勒令清盘。在日本获准执业的律师Takamatsu Kaoru（高松薰）于同日被指定为破产受托人。据我所知，该公司在清盘前从事保健品销售业务。\n\n2. 该公司在香港的Mizuho Bank, Ltd（瑞穗银行有限公司）及The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd（香港上海汇丰银行有限公司）开立有账户。高松先生希望查阅由这两家银行持有的该公司银行账户记录。尽管基于Bay Capital Asia Fund LP v DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd案中所述的理由，这两家银行本无需如此要求，但它们仍要求本法院出具授权高松先生索取和接收这些记录的命令。1 此外，该公司还作为当事人卷入了三起诉讼程序中。同时，至少有一名员工提出了拖欠工资索赔。\n\n3. 高松先生向本法院寻求认可并申请出具提供协助的命令，以便其能够处理该公司在香港的事务。他已从东京法院取得一份司法协助请求书，请求出具大体上符合本法院通常所授予格式的认可及协助命令。该申请附有同样在日本获准执业的律师Kondo Tetsuya（近藤哲也）的一份确认书作为支持，对日本破产法典的相关要点作出了阐述。\n\nE\n\nF\n\nG\n\nH\n\nI\n\nD\n\nB\n\nC\n\n1. 未编入判例集，HCMP 3104/2015，2016年11月2日；[2016] HKEC 2377, [2016] HKCU 2627。\n\n高松案（Takamatsu, Re）\n\n[2019] 5 HKC（夏利士法官） 507\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 3 of 6\n\n4. 据我所知，这是首例由在日本指定的、管理处于日本强制清盘程序中的日本注册公司的破产受托人，向本法院申请出具正式命令以认可日本清盘程序并提供协助的案件。因此，为了执业律师的利益，我很有必要概述法院裁决此类申请所依据的原则，并将我将要作出的命令附于本判决理由之后。 A B\n\n我将要作出的命令。\n\n与本申请相关的认可外国破产程序的原则\n\nC\n\n5. 法律已确立定论，香港法院将认可符合以下标准的外国破产清算程序：\n\n(1) 该外国破产清算程序属于集体破产清算程序，例如开曼群岛的临时清盘（例如Re Joint Provisional Liquidators of China Lumena New Materials Corp案2）；\n\n(2) 该外国破产清算程序是在该公司的注册成立国启动的（例如Re Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Ltd案3）。\n\n6. 一旦外国破产清算程序获得认可，香港法院将向外国破产管理人提供协助： E\n\n“在破产管理机构设立于与香港破产制度类似的法域的情况下，协助范围可扩大至作出赋予外国清盘人实质上相似权力的命令……”（Re Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Ltd案4）\n\n7. 鉴于法律已有确立定论，Companies Court（公司法庭）在此类认可命令申请中已经形成了标准实务做法，且此类申请可凭书面申请迅速获批：\n\n“近年来认可与协助申请数量的不断增加，使得本法院通常愿意根据依据司法协助请求书提出的书面申请而授予一种现成格式的命令。此类申请可以非常迅速地获批。为了执业律师的利益，我谨提请注意：尽管我对这些申请非常熟悉，但其他审理公司案件的法官未必同样熟悉，各项申请应符合《实务指引 3.5》（Practice Direction 3.5）的规定，并附带编有页码和索引的聆讯资料册，以协助法庭迅速处理。”（Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Ltd案5） G H\n\n8. 为便于以书面形式授予认可命令，公司法庭还提供了一份标准格式命令以指导申请人，正如Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes I\n\nD\n\nF\n\n2. 未编入判例集，[2018] HKCFI 276, [2018] HKCU 453。\n\n3. [2018] 2 HKC 485, [2018] 1 HKLRD 1120；[2018] HKCFI 277 第[12]段。\n\n4. 同上。\n\n5. 未编入判例集，HCMP 3560/2016，2017年1月27日；[2017] HKEC 146, [2017] HKCU 245；第[6]段。\nEnterprises (BVI) Ltd 案中所列。6\n所申请的命令符合公司法庭所形成的常规认可实务做法\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 4 of 6\n\n9. 日本属于大陆法系，因此香港法院对其熟悉程度不如具有类似普通法系破产清算制度的法域，而后者正是绝大多数认可与协助申请的来源地。然而，从为支持该申请而提交的证据中可以明确看出，该公司在其注册成立地正处于集体破产清算程序中。因此，该程序应当予以认可。 B C\n\n10. 日本《破产法》（2004年6月2日第75号法案）（下称“《法案》”）第78(1)条规定：“破产程序开始决定一经作出，管理及处分属于破产财团之财产的权利应专属于法院指定的破产管财人。”这似乎与香港个人破产情形下的破产受托人地位相似。近藤先生解释称，财产是自动归属于受托人的，无需另行作出将所有权移转给受托人的正式命令。\n\n11. 《法案》第34(1)条对破产财团作出了定义：“破产人在破产程序开始时所拥有的一切财产（无论该财产是否存在于日本境内），均构成破产财团。” E\n\n12. 《法案》第83(1)条赋予了受托人查阅与破产财团有关的账簿、文件及其它物品的权利。近藤先生认为，日本的主流观点是，只要第三人持有的账簿、文件和物品与破产财团相关，该权利就延伸至此类账簿、文件和物品。 F\n\n13. 在日本指定的破产受托人的地位和权力虽然与在香港指定的清盘人并非完全相同，但两者是相似的。依我之见，法院认可受托人关于破产财团管理的地位和权利，是符合既定原则的。在实际操作中，这包括认可受托人有权控制并管理该公司在香港的财产，从而接管在作出破产命令之前原本归属于该公司董事会的各项权利。这将包括索取、接收和/或查阅董事会有权索取的文件（如由该公司往来银行持有的银行记录）的权利。 G H\n\n14. 在Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Pacific Andes Enterprises (BVI) Ltd 案7中所列的标准认可及协助命令赋予了一名 I\n\nA\n\nD\n\n6. 同上。\n\n7. 同上。\n\n高松案（Takamatsu, Re）\n\n[2019] 5 HKC（夏利士法官） 509\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 5 of 6\n\n- 外国清算人管理公司资产及索取文件和信息的一般权力 [2(a)、(b) 及 (c)]。这些是受托人在日本破产制度下所拥有的权力。在我看来，本法院向日本受托人授予标准命令中的权力，与在 Pacific Andes 等案件中所讨论的原则是一致的，因为它们 A\n\n- 与受托人在日本法律下所拥有的权力一致。这些权力包括例如根据《Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32)》（《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（第32章））第 286B 条提出申请的权利，以针对有关公司事务的人士寻求讯问命令，或就公司的事务向第三方索取文件 B\n\n- 事务 [2(e)]。我想强调的是，第 [2(e)] 项中的命令赋予的是申请的权利。如果提出此类申请，Takamatsu 先生（高松先生）有必要证明在日本制度下存在类似权力，并且根据提交给本法院的证据授予此类命令是适当的。C\n\nD\n\nF\n\nG\n\nI\n\n裁定\n\n15. 因此，我将按照本判决理由后附的条款作出裁定。\n\n裁定 E\n\n1. 由 District Court of Tokyo, Twentieth Civil Division（东京地方法院民事第二十庭）于 2018年3月1日 作出的、就 Japan Life Co, Ltd（日本生命株式会社）（以下简称“公司”）启动破产程序并指定 Kaoru Takamatsu 先生（高松薰先生）（以下简称“受托人”）作为该公司破产受托人的命令，获本法院承认。\n\n2. 受托人拥有并可行使日本法律赋予他的权力，以及在受托人根据香港法律被指定为该公司清算人的情况下香港法律所赋予他的权力，特别是（但在不损害前述一般性原则的前提下）为以下目的：\n\n(a) 就有关该公司的事项（包括其发起、成立、业务往来、账目、资产、负债或事务，包括其资不抵债的原因），向第三方要求并接收相关文件和信息；\n\n(b) 在香港各法院的司法管辖区内，查找、保护、确保并占有及控制该公司有权享有或看似有权享有的所有资产和财产；H\n\n(c) 在香港各法院的司法管辖区内，查找、保护、确保并占有及控制该公司的账簿、文件和记录（包括会计和法定记录），并调查该公司的资产和事务以及导致其资不抵债的情况；\n\n(d) 为在行使其权力和职责时提供建议或协助的目的，聘用大律师、事务律师或律师，以及/或受托人认为适当的其他代理人或专业人士；以及\n\n(e) 在补充和落实上述第 (a) 至 (d) 分段所载权力可能需要的范围内，以其自身名义或以公司的名义，代表该公司并为了该公司的利益提起法律诉讼并向本法院提出所有此类申请，包括为以下目的提出的任何申请：A\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1409-24 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 10:03:34 Page 6 of 6\n\n(i) 披露令、出示文件令及/或讯问第三方的命令，受托人预计可提出该等命令申请，以协助其调查公司的资产和事务以及导致其资不抵债的情况；及/或 B\n\n(ii) 在任何已提起的法律诉讼中申请附带救济，例如冻结令、搜查及扣押令。\n\n3. 只要该公司在日本仍处于清算状态，除非经本法院许可并遵从本法院可能施加的条款，否则不得在香港各法院的司法管辖区内对该公司或其资产或事务、或其财产继续进行或提起任何诉讼或法律程序。\n\n4. 受托人有权提出申请；并且\n\n5. 本次申请的费用应从公司的资产中支付，作为公司的破产费用。\n\n法庭汇报员：Grace Law（罗）\n\nE\n\nD\n\nC\n\nF\n\nG\n\nH\n\nI","key_entities":["Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2585,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-30","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:16:15"}